at various confidence levels, confidence intervals and assumptions about the observed compliance rates. The chart below shows the results of the analysis.

34

88

68

45

50

112

38

124

87

53

60

176

39

136

93

55

62

202

39

141

95

56

63

213

40

149

99

57

65

232

40

152

100

57

65

238

41

160

101

58

67

246

41

162

104

59

67

264

estimated compliance rate of the universe 50% SQG Universe Size

190

500

800

1000

1640

2000

2704

10500

Confidence Level: % certainty that the result reflects the true population and is not due to chance)

90%

Confidence Interval/Margin of Error: the actual percentage of facilities in compliance falls somewhere within + or - the listed percentage points of the observed percent compliance

+/- 10%

+/-

+/-

+/-

+/-

+/-

5%

5%

5%

10%

5%

90%

90%

90%

95%

95%

50%

80%

90%

50%

50%

The highlighted columns show the level of certainty (confidence level) and precision (confidence interval) that are possible for what project states felt was a reasonable number of inspections per state (between 34 – 67):

o

The lowest range of inspections per state (column 1) – 34 for New Hampshire, the state with the smallest universe to 41 inspections for New York, the state with the largest) assumed the observed compliance rate would be 50%, used a 90% confidence level and a confidence interval for the measured value of plus or minus 10%.

o

45 inspections in New Hampshire and 59 inspections in New York would result in a confidence level of 90% and a confidence interval of + /- 5%, if the observed compliance rate 90% (as shown in column 4). While 50 and 67 inspections would result in a 95% confidence level and a confidence interval of + / – 10% if the observed compliance rate is 50% (as shown in column 5).

o

Notice that all states would need sample sizes of over 90 and as many as 264, to obtain a confidence interval of + / – 5% AND a 95% confidence level (as shown in column 7).